otto west and iambiguous discuss morality here, not there

James, I’m good with absolutes, so I’ll take this.

Rewarding non-consensual sex with assured pregnancy positively re-enforces non consensual birth into reality - that life is always about non-consent.

This is self refuting.

Let’s look at consent and birth, if something happens that was a consequence with respect to sex, retroactively, the consent was violated. Thus all unwanted pregnancies are rape.

Let’s look further.

We know that on the span of a lifetime, each fertile woman can have 52 children. Each fertile woman not having 52 REAL lives, is an abortionist.

So, Im ismbiguous world all women should be raped and forced to have 52 children each.

Iambiguous states that this isn’t an issue (consent) because there is no morality.

Iambiguous, let me give you advice on ethics…

I’ve been to hell. You not only don’t want to be there, you don’t want to be there forever …

So stop trying to show off as the bad ass non-moralist … seriously, it’s not good for your health.
You know what happens to the assholes that say there’s no morality?? Every demon in existence crawls out of the woodwork and eternally damns you, you know why ? Because you always forgive them. “It’s not a problem”

I speak from billions of years of experience, and to this day, I’m still gathering memories …,

My personal experience, with the logical evidence I supplied: stop it!

Women get abortions even when it’s illegal and immoral. People steal. People kill. People commit adultery.

They’re willing to take the risk.

Yeah, it’s because of people like me that there are so many problems in the world. If only there were no values or judgements, then we would be living in paradise. :smiley:

“Anything and everything is okay”. That’s the solution.

Basically there are a variety of constantly changing views out there concerning humanity and its evolution where there is no singular right or wrong criteria to them objectively as the universe doesn’t hand out objectives in of itself (people create objectives not the other way around), however the survival of a belief, value, or perception often requires power to enforce them where the value of belief can also depend on the beneficial relationship with those that adhere to it. If the belief is unbeneficial in terms of survival it loses value or validity.

If there was a group of people that thought it was morally justifiable to kill themselves in mass we can say it wasn’t of much value in that the adherents of that belief are all dead or in the process of dying. It’s not that suicide in mass is wrong but that it negates survival or existential being of the individuals involved. The belief becomes an evolutionary dead end and thereby loses all of its valuation. Once again survival is the metric of all valuations where morality is a residual fictional illusion people delude themselves in. The will to power is the will to survival and vice versa where from it all created valuations stem or revolve from.

Objectivism is like this childlike belief that human beings can somehow master and understand all of reality becoming its sole interpreter. The problem with this is that reality or the universe gives us very little to nothing at all to interpret where everything is self created conjecture. We live in a very subjective universe but not all subjective perceptions, valuations, or visualizations are equal in that some are more successful than others. Some subjective perceptions, valuations, and visualizations are dead ends. In this regard competition is always present as much of human behavior or interaction is. I call this competitive subjectivism, it’s how one thought or idea gains hegemony over all others. It’s not that it is objective but rather its power gains the most traction and is thoroughly pervasive in terms of embracing by people.

Yes, but the focus of this thread is to explore the extent to which folks do what they do because 1] they feel obligated morally to do so or 2] they concern themselves more with the consequences of getting caught by those convinced that particular behaviors are in fact the “wrong thing to do”.

Sure, there are those who feel that certain behaviors are immoral but do them anyway. Why? Because for one or another reason they are able to rationalize it. Including aborting their unborn babies. Maybe they feel it is wrong to kill unborn babies but their own unborn baby was as a result of rape; or it will come into the world with some affliction; or they are convinced that if they sincerely repent to God they will be forgiven.

The actual contextual permutations that any one of us might find ourselves in “out in the world” – out in a particular world viewed from a particular point of view – are practically endless.

After all, what do we really know of the experiences that others might have – experiences entirely at odds with our own?

You argue this, but I can scarcely imagine how you could possibly believe this is true given the length and breadth of our exchanges here.

I would never suggest that we are better off living in a world without values and judgments. Note a single instance where I have argued this. Instead, I argue that value judgments are a necessary component in a world where “rules of behavior” are fundamental to sustaining least dysfunctional human interactions. I merely argue that “here and now” I construe any particular individual values as embodied in existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I in turn construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And ever and always out in a particular world [historically, culturally and experientially] of contingency chance and change.

And that as a result of having “thought” myself into believing that this is true “in my head” “here and now” I am impaled on my dilemma above.

So the question is the extent to which your own moral values are derived from a different set of assumptions. The extent to which my own predicament is not applicable to you. As that pertains to a particular set of behaviors that you have chosen in interacting with others.

You claim to have gone there. But certainly not in the manner in which I construe the meaning of “going there”. And that is embedded in my existential trajectory above.

Yes, for all practical purposes, given an historical overview of human interactions to date, this is an entirely reasonable frame of mind.

Or so it seems to me. Here and now.

But:

As I interpret it, this “power to enforce” a particular political agenda is best rooted in “democracy and the rule of law” — in moderation, negotiation and compromise.

As opposed to “might makes right” or “right makes might”.

Now, what some folks do is to argue that Nietzsche had it right. Philosopher kings of the liberal “humanistic” school [like religious leaders] are ruled out because basically they become tools of the weak to emasculate the strong. Instead, the ubermen, who are more in sync with the one true understanding of human nature, not only prevail over the weak but ought to prevail over the weak.

And then there are the usual assumptions attached here regarding gender roles, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

They key component intertwining them all however is one or another rendition of this:

1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
3] “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature

I call them objectivists. And, from my frame of mind, what makes them embrace that frame of mind is in turn embedded in one or another psychological rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

Again, I think that this is an entirely reasonable way in which to think about human life and death. My point is only that there are others able to construct conflicting narratives that, given a different set of assumptions, are also reasonable. And that my frame of mind then revolves around the extent to which they argue in turn that their own narrative is [necessarily] most in sync with God and/or Reason and/or Nature.

In other words, that you are either “one of us” in sharing it, or you are wrong.

Where things get tricky here however is that there are any number of components embedded in human interactions that seem entirely objective in nature. Mathematics, the laws of physics, the empirical world around us, the logical rules of language.

In fact things can become rather “spooky” when you consider that the “is/ought” world may well in turn be entirely objective. But only because human moral narratives themselves are embodied in an illusion of autonomy in a wholly determined world.

Lack of consistency is a recurring problem in your posts. One day you don’t know how to figure out what is “good” and the next day you are promoting moderation, democracy and rule of law … as if those are “good” in some way or “better” than for example extremism, despotism and lawlessness.

It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it. Or you’re just wasting time with babble. Or maybe you enjoy the idea that people can’t pin you down.

But I acknowledge that in promoting democracy and the rule of law this is no less an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which over the years “I” came to be predisposed to view these things.

Once I was an objectivist myself regarding these relationships. Embracing either the Bible or the Communist Manifesto. Or the political philosophy of [among others] Leon Trotsky.

Then I happened upon William Barrett’s Irrational Man. That introduced me to “rival goods”. Richard Rorty then introduced me to “ironism”. Then, over still more time, this all became intertwined in the manner in which I came to construe the meaning of Heidegger’s Dasein.

And here “I” am. Acknowledging in turn that given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge “I” may reconfigure again.

Thus my point here is the attempt to pin down those aspects of human interaction that transcend dasein. Things able to be established as in fact true for all of us.

And I would certainly not argue that this includes democracy and the rule of law. Any number of objectivists stil hold it in contempt.

Right?

It’s just that “here and now” “I” see it as “the best of all possible worlds”.

Yet that doesn’t make my dilemma above go away.

Yes, this was more or less Moreno’s argument. And it’s a good one.

Indeed, I will be the first to admit that “in the moment” [subjunctively] when “I” am making my arguments, it “feels” nothing at all like being predisposed to particular leaps of faith. Leaps of faith embodied in particular political prejudices.

Yet I am no less impaled on my dilemma when I pull back and try to think it all through to The Right Answer.

And what I enjoy is polemics. And yet somehow subjunctively even that seems to be entangled “in my head” in this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles

I just have no illusion that these enormously complex and convoluted “frames of mind” will ever be pinned down definitively such that “I” will finally grasp once and for all what this is really all about.

You know, in the is/ought world.

Not just an existential contraption but a contraption which is incompatible with your other contraption - moral nihilism.

Which one to use when confronted with an issue? And why?

Why have both of them?

Biguous is one of those people, many people, who have an unrealistic, you can also say an idealistic, understanding of how intelligence works.

God is dead they say and then they remain stuck in a vague feeling of what is right and what is wrong but why bother with anything.
Taking a position, having objectives means you might fail or you could be proven wrong.
Much better to hide your aspirations, even from yourself on a certain level, to not face potential failure.

Stand for nothing and thus don’t expose yourself to any attacks.

“human interactions that transcend dasein” - What a bizarre idea. It seems that every aspect of every interaction has to be tied into dasein. How can it not be so?

What is common to the interaction is humans with a particular biology and therefore particular needs and drives. (Even that does not transcend dasein because human biology has evolved and will evolve, so the “time element” of dasein is always there.)

Let do an example how morality might work:

We can come up with a philosophical principle based such as “Life is valuable”. Humans and other animals seem to want stay alive.

Let’s say there is a planet with two islands. One (Island L) has low reproductive rates due to some chemicals in the local food (but they don’t know the reason). The other (Island H) has high reproductive rates to the point that resources are becoming scarce.

What would be the morality of abortion on these islands?

It makes sense to make abortion immoral (and illegal) on Island L in order to prevent complete extinction of life.

It makes sense to make abortion moral on Island H in order to have enough resources to feed the current population.

Both are evaluating their particular situation based on the “transcending” principle that “Life is valuable”. They are in sync with “human needs”.

Of course, there are other possible moralities of abortion on these islands. How much are they meeting human needs? Does a principle that says “Abortion is always wrong” make sense? Can one reasonably apply such a principle without looking at the specific situation? I don’t think so.

The fact of my grinding ambivalence relating to value judgments and conflicting goods is [here and now] inextricably/ineffably intertwined in the manner in which I connect the dots between the existential contraptions embodied in “I” [in the is/ought world] and moral nihilism.

One begets the other.

How [after all this time] could you not grasp this about my own existential contraption here relating to morality out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view?

Again, choose a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with and we can this discuss this considerably more substantively.

We’re already discussing abortion in this thread.

Yes, and substantively, in the OP, I embedded my own moral narrative regarding it in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Now, you claim to have provided your own facsimile of this. And then I argue that I don’t recognize it as resembling my own effort at all.

And then we’re stuck.

Yes, well there are a number of explanations for that. But since every attempt to get to the explanation seems to be blocked by your filters of everything that is said to you … “you don’t understand” or “it’s all in their heads” … I don’t see any way to get around it and to move towards a reasonable explanation. I mean you claim that “a reasonable explanation” is just a construct in my head. Right?

There’s really no place to go. Unless I give in and accept your view that “there is no place to go”. :wink:

But I don’t think that it is true. And I don’t feel that it is true. The physical universe “out there” draws me to other conclusions.

Oh well, not important.

.

Yes, over the years, one or another objectivist [usually a Satyrean Uberman] has noted this distinction between me and them.

In other words, they have the courage to take a stand and embrace one or another political dogma.

And, if only I would grow a pair, I could too.

What’s crucial here of course is that in merely asserting this they don’t have to actually examine the points I make regarding the relationship [out in the world…a particular world] between a sense of self, a value judgment and the extent to which embracing one or another is embedded/embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

They can just skip all that girly stuff and assume the only thing that matters is that you do “take a stand”.

Indeed, they take their own manly, muscular leap to a particular set of political prejudices and, quoting either Nietzsche or Nature, insist that you are then “one of us” or “one of them”.

Here I merely suggest that the arrogance behind this manly, muscular bluster is more a psychological rendition of this…

1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
3] “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” is embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature

…embedded in one or another unique and personal psychological rendition of this…

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

…then a demonstration that they are in fact being a man and doing the right thing. Or, rather, that they are doing something instead of nothing at all.

Yet I have noted over and again that, yes, to the extent that one chooses to interact with others, one must do something. And that is embedded in the obvious: that, in any and all human communities, “rules of behavior” are absolutely mandatory.

Again, it only comes down to the extent to which the least dysfunctional combination of democracy, might makes right and right makes might is chosen and/or imposed “here and now” in any particular community. The part revolving around political economy.

All I am suggesting here is that, given the manner in which I construe these relationships, all such interactions [in the is/ought world] are more or less “existential contraptions” rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

That’s really all we can do here though, isn’t it?

We can provide others our own moral narrative and at least make an attempt to intertwine it in the life that we have actually lived. We can grapple with illustrating our philosophical assumptions by noting particular contexts in which they were tested.

I think that I have accomplished this substantively in providing the components of my own existential trajectory above. And, in my own opinion, you have not.

And now all that we can do is to leave it to others to decide for themselves if your own attempts here were in fact equally substantial.

Again: What on earth is this familiar “general description” assertion in reference to? In what particular context? What are the options available to us in choosing where to go? And what happens when a conflict breaks out regarding where a rational/virtuous man or women is obligated to go?

With respect to abortion or to any other conflicting good.

The physical universe is “out there” all right. But what does that have to do with a clash of moral narratives out in a particular world where, historically, culturally and experientially, we might bump into any number of conflicting goods?

And what could possibly be more important than discussing this? And [possibly] recognizing the limitations of philosophy in coming to conclusions [resolutions] that may not even be there.

Or were folks like Wittgenstein [and Richard Rorty’s ironists] completely off the mark here?

Somehow you manage, in your head, to strip morality of all links to the external world.

There seems to be no way to reattach it for you. C’est la vie.

“Discussing it” in this case means repeating the same statements over and over. You, yourself, said that there is no way to measure progress. There is no direction, endpoint or goal that the discussion can move towards. It is talk for the sake of talk.

You can spend your time better by gossiping about Taylor Swift.

Epictetus - Discourses Book 1, Chapter 5